Currently Finland shows a passive attitude in the discussions about the future of the European Union. Therefore, it is unclear whether Finland supports a stronger Union and a Common Foreign and Security Policy, as opposed to ten years ago when Finland was clearly in favour of the community method for European integration, the Euro, EU enlargement and a stronger EU foreign policy. In this article Forsberg provides seven explanations why a debate on the future of the EU and a common foreign and security policy is currently lacking in Finland.
If there is an ongoing debate on the future of Europe, and in particular, on Europe's role in the world, it has not reached Finland. To be honest, it is quite difficult to know what Finland expects and wants from the EU and from its Common Foreign and Security Policy. If we trust the official speeches and documents, Finland is still in favour of a stronger EU. But there is no clear vision of what it really should mean or how a stronger EU can be achieved in practice and there are no active policy initiatives or action plans to support such a goal.
It is good to bear in mind that this was not the case some ten years ago. Finland at the time wanted to be at the core on the EU. It had a vision of Europe, supported the use of the community method for European integration, joined the Euro, promoted enlargement policies and engagement with Russia and was actively creating the institutions and goals of European Security and Defence Policy.
Today, Finland appears more marginal than before with regard to discussions on European foreign and security policy and European defence with the exception of attempts to contribute to conflict prevention, civilian crisis management and peace mediation. There is no active domestic debate, not to mention a political opposition that would challenge the government with new ideas about the EU's future role in the world.
Personally, I regret the situation. Yet, I can come up with seven partly overlapping explanations to why the debate on Europe's future, in particular as far as foreign and security policy is concerned, is currently lacking in Finland.
First, one reason for Finland's passive attitude towards the future of the EU is that the 'romantic period' after Finland joined the Union in 1995 has run out of steam. First enthusiasm then fatigue is a rather expected pattern for any newcomer.
Secondly, the politicians that shaped Finland's EU policy during the early stage of the membership were men with vision. Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen believed in the European integration and was willing to invest in the European project even at the cost of his losing his personal popularity at home. President Martti Ahtisaari also fully supported a stronger Europe and Finland's ambitions for being at its core. Today's key political leaders, though they are pro-European, do not have the same strong personal motivation to foster European integration. Alexander Stubb is perhaps an exception: he is still the Minister for European Affairs, but he would need the support of other coalition members to be able to put the Finnish European project back on the track.
Third, an anti-integrationist party, the True Finns (or the Finns as they prefer to call themselves), received a landslide victory in the 2011 parliamentary elections. They decided to remain in opposition but their emergence as a substantial political force has shaped the political climate. In European matters, the government is now in defence rather than in offence.
Fourth, the Euro crisis dominates the European agenda and discussion on the EU's external relations and security and defence has remained in the shadow because of that. As long as the economic crisis is acute, initiatives about new steps in security and defence do not get attention, they do not even appear as serious at the moment.
Fifth, the discussion has moved elsewhere. Finland's relationship in NATO is still an issue for the media, although nothing would change in that relationship. The new issue on the agenda is Nordic defence cooperation and, in particular, Finland's participation in the surveillance of the Icelandic air space.
Sixth, Finland was not represented in the Future of Europe group of the eleven foreign ministers, neither was Finland invited to the group of four foreign ministers to draft a global strategy for Europe. Finland's non-participation in these groups may rather be a consequence than a cause of Finland's passivity, but because of Finland's absence, almost no media attention has been given to these efforts in Finland.
Seventh, Finland is a status quo country. The identity of being a small nation still dominates the basic mentality of the majority of the Finns. National survival is conceived as the key task for the country's foreign as well as security and defence policy. Trends of globalization have not changed much the cognitive map that locates Finland far from the world's hot spots. In the 1990s things were different. Finland suffered from a heavy recession and the security situation in Russia was volatile. New thinking was demanded then. Today Finland is doing economically relatively well and despite the political development in Russia has not been ideal, Finland does not feel threatened. So why shouldn't the future be as it is today?
Tuomas Forsberg is Professor in International Relations at the University of Tampere